Moiraine

I think your answer is in how much attention this has gotten, and also the reaction to when people actually do have peaceful protests out on the street. One thing I hadn't thought of until literally at this moment was how MLK protested in the streets. This could open a whole can of worms. I don't agree with people running onto the freeway and blocking the highway. But I have a feeling MLK didn't get the rights from the city council to hold a parade in those towns. I'm guessing they just went and did it. I think people would react similarly to this but it wouldn't get nationwide attention so it wouldn't be as effective as what these players are doing. I wonder what would happen if a parade was requested on O Street in Lincoln for this.

It's just a focus group. They had one on CNN where 4 people went from undecided to Clinton. I didn't take anything away from this as it's not a random sample and even if it was it's not big enough.

There are lots of levels of embarrassment and upsetness. I didn't so much care that Bo was "embarassing" but that I thought his attitude affected his players' ability to stay focused on the game. But I feel like this stuff should be left out of the current topic...

The problem with this statement is that people all over (in the U.S. and in this thread) are talking about what the song means to justify how upset they are at what these players are doing. If the song doesn't mean what its lyrics mean, then am I allowed to just make it up as I go and then read into the players' minds and say they hate soldiers? There is a reason why said racist lyrics are not sung before sporting events. If they were, people would have taken a knee a very long time ago, and I would have supported it. Either way, nobody has said that the anthem itself is the reason why they are on their knee. And I'm not saying anyone has said that the anthem itself is the reason why they are on their knee. But the premise for people's anger, that the players are disrespecting soldiers, is based on what people think the flag and the national anthem mean and stand for. Therefore people discuss what the flag and the national anthem mean and stand for. So it is definitely relevant that there are racists parts of the anthem.

The problem with this statement is that people all over (in the U.S. and in this thread) are talking about what the song means to justify how upset they are at what these players are doing. If the song doesn't mean what its lyrics mean, then am I allowed to just make it up as I go and then read into the players' minds and say they hate soldiers?

I know. I'm recovering for an illness so it seems I'm confusing everyone. I was too lazy to dig back for his original post and forgot that I can just remove your response.

I said it during the debate. Cut out their mics. Honestly, there's a way they could do it that wouldn't seem biased. If they're giving someone 2 minutes to talk, cut the other person's mic out until it's over and then let them argue.

What exactly do you mean by the part in bold? That anyone who disagrees with CK or others protesting the anthem are racist? Please, explain your rationale. Yeah, that whole paragraph comes off like a passive aggressive form of calling conservatives racist. If you are referring to Social Conservatives, then typically by definition, these people defend institutions, systems, beliefs, and traditions that are discriminatory to other groups. While those people may not intend to be racist or discriminatory, it can often be a direct consequence. If you are talking Fiscal Conservatives, I think that is an invalid connection. That said, the way I interpreted Guy's statement is Conscious vs Unconscious Discrimination. The latter happens all the time and it's important everyone is constantly evaluating our positions. This is also a big part of what is driving the protests... I didn't make any connection whatsoever in his posts to conservatives. Those two people happen to be conservative but I don't recall anyone here relating the two things.

I don't agree, and one of them was moved. You have the choice to not be part of the conversation for this topic. And I imagine if it devolves enough it will be moved in due time.

What exactly do you mean by the part in bold? That anyone who disagrees with CK or others protesting the anthem are racist? Please, explain your rationale. I mean good people who don't believe they are racist. People like me. Who sometimes has to be reminded that my experience and wishful thinking doesn't explain everything away. Good people who simply don't HAVE the experience. Who can't understand what it's like being black in America, and truly, sweetly believe that because they get along so well with that nice black lady in Accounts Receivable that race isn't a problem anymore. Good people who believe in good things like dutiful policemen, brave soldiers and the U.S. Constitution, but get swayed into thinking a legitimate protest flies in the face of that. Because we seem hard-wired to choose sides. If you think the mainstream media advances a progressive agenda, you also have Sean (look at Chicago!) Hannity churning out the simplistic bromides that good people swallow and repeat without much reflection. But when you get a little more reflection -- like what's happening now -- a lot of good people are kind and honest enough to admit they really don't understand what someone else's life might be like. And they're open to the possibility that their inattention has played into a lot of systemic racism. The kind of racism that relies on good people doing nothing. That's my rationale. We good? Very, very well put. I see this as naive racism. Another example is those that fight and claw to find some other reason that people have bad experiences. It couldn't possibly be due to their race. Or, people who say the issues minorities face are a "cultural problem." When people say "it's a cultural problem" it's a way to deflect blame and place it on those very people who are experiencing it. Saying it's a cultural problem is another way of saying "it's your fault."

no prob

Unfortunately it's not limited to Nebraska and I'm guessing the reaction to other players doing the same thing is similar.

Oy vey. Am I being called racist even after saying multiple times that I am not racist, and that I agree racism is a problem? That is what Landlord seems to be saying. I am from Texas, and the vast majority of people there are not racist, I am not going to feed any stereotypes. However, I have also seen some racism there. some of it pretty bad, to the point where it even offended me, and I am white. So do not open your mouth to call someone racist if they have not said a single racist thing. Read what I wrote again. My comment wasn't aimed at you.

...except for the silent protest that didn't hurt anything last Saturday, apparently? GBRHouston, I'd be curious to hear exactly where/how racism does still exist in this country, from your perspective? I hear a lot of people say something along the lines of, "Hey I'm not saying racism doesn't still exist", but then they spend pretty much all of their time refuting evidence of it existing. This is how I feel. It is not racist to be against what the players did, but the conversation that has followed here and all over the U.S. has shown that quite a few people are against it for racist reasons. Namely the people who say they have nothing to protest against.

But here's the thing...those of us who disagree with CK and MRI protesting the flag believe that action is disgraceful and disrespectful despite recognizing they have the right to do it. Heck, they can spit on the flag, burn it as has been done often in this country, etc... This country offers them that right, but it also offers other citizens, including an elected official, the right to voice his disagreement with their actions. So as I said before, this is a 2-way street. What are you arguing against? No one is disputing free speech. But there are some arguing with how Ricketts is using his freedom of speech, while bashing anyone who disagrees with how MRI is using his freedom of speech. See the hypocrisy. This is a debate and topic where there is going to be strong division no matter what others say. So it is hypocrisy to criticize an elected official that publicly passes judgement on the legal and protected actions of a private citizen?!? Fun facts like one person makes/enforces Government policy and the other does not would have no bearing in this situation, correct? Yes...just because you are an elected official does not mean you lose your right to express your views. I don't agree with the regent suggesting they should be kicked off the team, but that is not what Ricketts (the elected official) stated. I know our current POTUS has weighed in on controversial topics rather quickly...so are you suggesting he should not be doing that? I agree with you. I love how freedom of speech is "a great thing" until people say they don't support the anthem protests. Freedom of speech goes out the window for us who don't support according to a lot of people. Have you been arrested? Has anyone tried to stop you from talking about it other than to say they disagree with what you're saying?

Good job on finding the shortest way to put it. I hope you're wrong about Northwestern and Wisconsin. But I think Michigan will win too.

Do you want to go to a game in a 90,000 seat stadium with people who have not been screened? In today's world, really do you? I guess I have never thought about it as in being worried of being hurt. But what I mean is, why are we okay with this but not okay with frisking people on the street? They both seem kind of wrong. One's worse than the other, imo. Everyone has their bags checked at Memorial Stadium. Male, female, White, Black, gay, straight. Though if you don't have a bag you don't get checked, last time I went. Which means they're sexist 'cause it's probably more women who get checked The problem with stop and frisk is it will inevitably lead to racial profiling, which is something I was guessing myself but I did a search... Also:

It's less entertaining but so refreshing to see Riley's "upset" reaction. I don't really want Nebraska to be entertaining for the wrong reason.

No... but it might be lofty to think we'll still be there at the end of the season, heh.

Bingo to what is bolded...that is what started this debate...how the freedom of speech has been used via protesting the national anthem. Why are you saying "bingo" ? You've gone on and on about hypocrisy and how we're complaining about what Ricketts said and how he should have the right to free speech too. Nobody has argued he doesn't have a right to say what he did, yet you're implying his free speech rights are being questioned. They haven't and they aren't, yet you've been saying it for about 2 pages now. Did you not see the part "Its how its used" suggesting that how freedom of speech is used does matter. Some on here were questioning how Ricketts went about using his freedom of speech, just as others question how CK and MRI are using their freedom of speech. I saw the part about how you whined that Ricketts isn't allowed to have his say, which is false. People complaining about the players doing this are being argued with. They're not being told they're not allowed to be upset.

Bingo to what is bolded...that is what started this debate...how the freedom of speech has been used via protesting the national anthem. Why are you saying "bingo" ? You've gone on and on about hypocrisy and how we're complaining about what Ricketts said and how he should have the right to free speech too. Nobody has argued he doesn't have a right to say what he did, yet you're implying his free speech rights are being questioned. They haven't and they aren't, yet you've been saying it for about 2 pages now.

Here's the thing...freedom of speech is a 2-way street. Someone earlier made a point that players should be allowed to express themselves even if it leads to divisions within the team and the program. I am all on board with freedom of speech and expression but also am on board with the criticism that follows. So if the players can voice their concerns, why isn't Ricketts allowed to voice his concern....because of the impact it may have on recruiting? I personally thought the articles was poorly written and only considered one side of the debate. Anytime a political topic is injected into a team environment, it's going to create opposing views and conflict. Ricketts did not initiate the topic but was responding to actions taken by the players. People can disagree with him just as many disagree with the players. With that said, I do hope MRI and Ricketts have a nice conversation. This looks like a false narrative to me. Who is saying that Ricketts can't exercise his right to free speech? If there are people saying that, then they need to learn about the 1st Amendment. But reacting to and criticizing Ricketts is also protected speech. I completely agree...everybody has the right to speak their minds. It seems some in here though they feel strongly in the players right to speak their minds and protest the way they have are also the ones to criticize Ricketts for speaking his mind. I already said this in the other thread, but I'll do it again. Has Ricketts been arrested? Has he come to any harm? Anyhow, I don't see people telling Ricketts to keep his mouth shut. I see them saying what he says with his mouth is stupid.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17655037/two-regents-gov-pete-ricketts-criticize-nebraska-cornhuskers-kneeling MRI is meeting with the governor. It was linked on http://collegefootballplayoff.com/

If Nebraska wins every game through Wisconsin we'll get our first committee rankings top 10. Then we'll play Ohio State...

We used to have games before 11. Not often, but sometimes at 10:30. Let's do that